The third component of Cate's proposed approach to the privacy debate centers on the role of the federal government in privacy protection. As stated above, Americans are inherently suspicious of a powerful central government; therefore, the citizens [*262] demand limited interference by the federal government. Keeping this idea in mind, Cate suggests that the government avoid taking an active role in enforcing privacy rights on behalf of individuals. n59 Additionally, Cate suggests that the federal government avoid the role of "supervisory authority" over data compilers. n60 Cate observes that both roles should be avoided because of the inherent burden of expense, bureaucratic "red-tape," and constitutional violations. n6l

FEDERAL LAW WILL NOT GO FAR ENOUGH BECAUSE OF THE INFLUENCE OF INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS

JOHN LABATE and PATTI WALDMEIR Financial Times (London) January 28, 2000, SECTION: WORLD NEWS: US & CANADA; Pg. 8 TITLE: WORLD NEWS: US & CANADA: Data privacy battle to shift to states // acs-EE2001

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre, a leading advocate of privacy legislation, expects some states to pass laws governing privacy in the short term but says "there is a different dynamic in Washington".

Federal legislators, heavily influenced by industry lobbyists, have largely accepted the argument that privacy can best be protected through self-regulation rather than legislation.

At present, no existing agency or department in the United States is well suited to the tripartite role of consensus builder, privacy arbitrator, and international advocate. The Department of Commerce, where international privacy policy is presently formed, may be politically expedient, but is inappropriate for the range of privacy issues in the Information Society. The Commerce Department does not, for example, have particular expertise or competence in health privacy issues or global flows of employee data and is notoriously captured by business interests at the expense of [*791] citizens' concerns. n92 The State Department might be more appropriate for the foreign policy role, but has no expertise on the myriad of domestic privacy issues. Similarly, existing independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission would be poor choices for the centralization of privacy policy. The competence of these existing agencies is sectoral and each lacks expertise in cross-sectoral issues. The recent creation of a new position in the White House Office of Management and Budget is a good, but insufficient step. n93 Unfortunately, the new position is placed within the layers of the OMB bureaucracy and does not fulfill all the needed roles. Instead, the post has a coordinating role and does not have policy decision-making authority nor does the position have authority for the international negotiations with Europe.

In theory, the Federal rules do not override state laws that provide more protection for privacy.

But William B. Bruno, a lawyer for the psychiatric association, said, "Patients could lose some protections they now have. At present -- because of state laws, court decisions and canons of medical ethics -- many hospitals will not disclose medical records unless the patient gives consent. The Federal Government is now weighing in, saying that's not required. It's giving a green light for significant changes in current practice."